Yeah I have. Problem is with ALL the special interests kicking up a fuss I don't see any solution working easily. Back home there was a district that was basically a 5 mile border on I85 for like 20 miles with a knob on the end. Just ensure that one guy stayed elected.

Problem is, people have come up with programs to neutrally draw it out only to have the farm, inner city! Hispanic, gay and so on special interests kick up a fuss. Everyone wants clear districting as long as they come out on top.

I remember when if you wanted special rights and privileges from the government, people would laugh and tell you to be fair to everyone else. Of course, when you give some people special treatment, everyone else wants theirs.

Perhaps the best way to get back to sanity is to stop giving anyone special treatment. However, I doubt any politician beyond maybe Chris Christie (not that I agree with everything he says) has the gall to stand up to these groups.

Alternatively, if we can get the special interests to fight against each other. It's sad how the National Organization of Women never goes after the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, even if the latter shows that animals should be respected and women should be treated as objects.

I don't think the problem is in the way we vote but is rather in the nature of democracies (or constitutional-republic). As it is any one person's vote does not count. Candidates win in the aggregate. That is where the votes count. Who votes for who on an individual basis isn't important because they don't count the votes one at a time. Votes are counted in blocks. The only way around this is the old hand count which is pretty much impossible now because of the spread of the nefarious electronic voting machines (interestingly, the main company associated with these machines -not sure if I can say the name on the board- purchased -American voting machine company- back in January. The result is one international company which is privately held now controls voting in twenty nations.) As a democracy we are functioning more or less exactly how democracies are supposed to function, we are destroying ourselves and our community by being split into what are essentially warring factions. Monarchy, the non-constitutional sort, makes more sense.

Before laughing and ignoring me, think about it. Democracies go to war for ideas, as such there are black and white winners and losers which leads to much wonton destruction and disruption. Monarchies go to war for tangible goals which results in campaigns generally limited scope with clearly defined goals. In addition, monarchies that are hereditary compel the ruler to leave the country in a better state then it was when he took office for his heir. If the ruler doesn't do that any ambitious family may try for the throne. Even if that happens, the conflict is limited in scope because the family attempting the coup doesn't want to rebuild the entire nation, just the royal palace.

Finally, look at how tax codes are generally propagated under a monarchy. Monarchies, those that aren't corrupted by legislatures, generally want to keep their people happy and recognize that there is a difference between ownership and profit. Take property, we don't own anything in this nation. We have a piece of paper that says it's ours but what happens when you don't pay your taxes? Whatever was yours is stripped from you by the government. We rent from the government in this nation. Property taxes should only be charged at the moment of purchase and then in the future only if you make a profit off of your land.

Silentscreams, I'll agree that a monarchy could be better than our current system if and only if you can avoid any sort of corruption. However, if we can't avoid corruption, monarchies are far worse than our current system. Unfortunately, however, once you have a monarchy, the only way to get rid of them is violent revolution if they do end up corrupted, because they just stop the voting process.

This is a bit off topic from my original topic, but for those reading, maybe you can give me thoughts on this.

There's talk during the primaries about how people will go out and vote for a person who isn't as likely to win. Nowadays, it's people voting for Santorum who really want Obama, but four years ago, it was people voting for Clinton who really wanted McCain. This is nothing new, but I had an idea for a possible solution.

What about if, when you vote in one of these primaries and your candidate comes up as a winner, your vote is locked in on that person? Thus, people who vote for Santorum/Clinton in the election, if that candidate wins, will have their vote automatically go to that person. It would keep people from trying to sway things in alternate parties because it proves that they really want that person.

To better explain, because it's probably not very clear. I'll use current figures just to make it easier, but if really necessary, I'll use fake names or last election's people.

Let's say that someone really wants Obama to get re-elected, believes that Romney might beat Obama but Santorum has no chance. That person goes to the primary and votes for Santorum, not actually wanting Santorum to win, but just wanting to lock out Romney from having the chance. Under my proposal, if Santorum won the primary, their general election vote would automatically be given to Santorum, meaning that they won't just vote for him to try to sway the election, because even if they succeed, they can't vote for Obama.

The easiest way to fix the problem would be the state parties to ban cross party voting. I live in a state where cross party primary voting is not allowed. A primary is supposed to be used for one party to pick their candidate for an election. It makes no sense to me why cross party primary voting is allowed. It seems that the whole purpose is to subvert the primary process.

Do not equate monarchies with constitutional monarchies. Monarchies tend to do much better then constitutional monarchies on the corruption issue. For a much more eloquent explanation of this view I would refer you to Hans-Herman Hopp's book Democracy: The God that Failed

Simply banning it, though, lets a lot of people fall through the cracks. I'm neither Democrat nor Republican, so I don't get to vote in primaries whatsoever. If you simply ban it, it gives a lot more power to those parties, because the voices of people outside those groups aren't heard as much.

Yes it is imperfect, however that's the price you pay for not being in a party. We have a (essentially) two party system. I'm a Libertarian so I will get to vote in a primary, but I'll have to write in Ron Paul because he is not the libertarian candidate, nor is he on the ticket because he's a Republican running for the republican nomination. Party primaries are not designed to be inclusive. They are designed to be exclusive. In order to vote you have to be a member. I don't see anything wrong with that. If you want to vote in a primary join a party.

The easiest way to fix the problem would be the state parties to ban cross party voting. I live in a state where cross party primary voting is not allowed. A primary is supposed to be used for one party to pick their candidate for an election. It makes no sense to me why cross party primary voting is allowed. It seems that the whole purpose is to subvert the primary process.

Do not equate monarchies with constitutional monarchies. Monarchies tend to do much better then constitutional monarchies on the corruption issue. For a much more eloquent explanation of this view I would refer you to Hans-Herman Hopp's book Democracy: The God that Failed

Monarchies.. What this country fought a war against. The Founding Fathers would turn over in their graves and all of the dead since then joining them. Monarchies are not good and I cannot see why you are pushing them. On the corruption scale, they can be a lot worse because in a democracy, there is at least a chance of change. With a monarchy (and you seem to want one what isn't bound by a constitutional one), you are stuck with that king/queen until the old bastard either dies, steps down from the throne (Hah!) or is overthrown.

It's all about checks and balances. In a monarchy, if you have one monarch who is insane, the titled nobility would have an interest in removing him or her from power and deposing the family, thus becoming top dog. These wars need not be destructive outside of the aristocracy, see the War of the Roses. That threat of removal acts as a check against their power. In addition, a monarch has a personal interest in advancing the interests of the nation during her rule so that her heir inherits something better then what she got when she inherited. To that end, a free, educated people is a benefit to the monarch because they provide wealth and power to the nation.

Are you familiar with the tragedy of the commons? In colonial America each town would set aside a portion of land for a community grazing area. No one owned it, no one, therefore, invested in it or took care of it. The animals would, within a few generations, destroy it because no one person was in charge of it.

In our current system a President is in office for, at most, eight years. There is no incentive to make the nation better. For decades this wasn't much of a problem because there was the idea of serving something greater then the self but as we entered the post-modern age this idea has lost merit and now people sek out office not to enrich the nation as a whole but to enrich themselves. Everyone raids the kitty while not addressing the very real problems that face us. Everyone enters office and does what they want knowing that in, at most, eight years the problems they are refusing to address will be somebody else's problem.

As to spinning in their graves do you think that this nonsense we have now is what the Founders wanted? They fought a war over a tax that was a tenth of one percent. What's the percentage you pay in taxes? I guarantee it's more then that. Thomas Jefferson was a radical revolutionary. He never expected the Constitution to last this long, nor did he want it to, he was a firm believer in a little rebellion every few years being good for society because unless you are willing to die for it you don't posses it.

Look at it like this, the so called American Hero is always portrayed as an agent of the state, whether its a police man or a soldier the American Hero is always a tool of the government. Yet the histories of the people who signed the Deceleration of Independence reveal litany of pirates, black marketeers, speculators, and general malcontents. John Hancock, the famous importer in the popular histories, who signed his name the largest on the Declaration and who provided casks of wine to the rebels after they looted the governors house, made his fortune through the partial, and then outright, ownership of pirate ships that preyed upon British, French, and Spanish shipping in the Caribbean. Sam Adams, who is more or less ignored now, and who was the man most responsible for our independence would be classified as a terrorist today. Henry Lee, revolutionary general and father to Robert E. Lee, was a professional gambler and black marketeer. Paul Revere, when he wasn't involved in the silver trade, ran a counterfeit business on the side. The list is endless. The control, waste, and manipulation that is visited daily upon the American people is not something that the Founders would have liked. They would have fought against it.

They were not unified in their opposition to Monarchy, either. They were opposed to an absentee Hessian King (George the Third didn't speak English and was a German noble until he married onto the throne of England) who let his decisions concerning the colonies be influenced by the East India Trading Company, the Hudson Bay Trading Company, and those politicians that the trading companies purchased in Parliament, including the architect of the Stamp Act and the Townsend Act, Lord North.

As far as voting goes, the founders clearly did not believe tat the people could be trusted since senators were appointed and the electoral college was put in place to stop the country from making a mistake in who they elected. In the Federalist Papers there is a long essay about the electoral college. It was not supposed to be a rubber stamp but was a final check to ensure that the right person was elected. Thomas Jefferson famously distrusted the people to do what was in their best interest. In his private correspondence he often lamented the fact that people had been given the right to vote because they were too quick to vote emotionally rather then intellectually.

Personally I think there needs to be some deep and PAINFUL reforms put in. Some of these include.

-A new limit on terms. Not outright banning after X number of terms but a 'time out period' for ALL elected offices. You do two terms and then you have to sit out a term.-MASSIVE changes in the way campaign funds are accounted for and reported. Citizen's United have put us in a spot where the average American is less important than the people funding the elections. You've got a dozen people putting 80% or more of the funds into a campaign (directly/indirectly), how can John Q. Public working on a budget make an effect on the candidates? Already.. in 2 months of this year, more money has been put into the Republican primaries than was put into the ENTIRE 2000 presidential elections. -Lobbyists and Special Interests run the show. That MUST change. They are SETTING policy rather than offering information. -Gerrymandering must be addressed. Good luck on that one. I honestly can't think of a way to do it that won't offend one or more groups. Even if you just dropped the population data into a computer program and it put out perfectly unbiased districts, you'd have problems. The demand for representation for every possible interest group, ethnicity and/or whatever else you can think of has made redistricting after each census a literal nightmare.

It's all about checks and balances. In a monarchy, if you have one monarch who is insane, the titled nobility would have an interest in removing him or her from power and deposing the family, thus becoming top dog. These wars need not be destructive outside of the aristocracy, see the War of the Roses. That threat of removal acts as a check against their power. In addition, a monarch has a personal interest in advancing the interests of the nation during her rule so that her heir inherits something better then what she got when she inherited. To that end, a free, educated people is a benefit to the monarch because they provide wealth and power to the nation.

Uuumm.. No. The nobility are often just as corrupt and bad as the monarch and almost ALL of them are scheming to get on the throne. Also, since they would be titled nobility/royalty what incentive is there for them to even pay attention to the commoners? You said you don't like the constitutional monarchies. That leaves the one where the nobles and king have all the power. With that in play, again I ask, what incentive is there for them to run the country for the peoples benefit and not to enhance their own power? Remember monarchs in that situation control the military. It would take a messy civil war to replace the king and frankly, if a monarchy system was set up in the US, I would get my gun and start shooting every royal supporter I could. A monarchy like what you suggest is not a free and open place.

Quote

Are you familiar with the tragedy of the commons? In colonial America each town would set aside a portion of land for a community grazing area. No one owned it, no one, therefore, invested in it or took care of it. The animals would, within a few generations, destroy it because no one person was in charge of it.

Yeah. A communist style of arrangement,m It doesn't work.

Quote

In our current system a President is in office for, at most, eight years. There is no incentive to make the nation better. For decades this wasn't much of a problem because there was the idea of serving something greater then the self but as we entered the post-modern age this idea has lost merit and now people sek out office not to enrich the nation as a whole but to enrich themselves. Everyone raids the kitty while not addressing the very real problems that face us. Everyone enters office and does what they want knowing that in, at most, eight years the problems they are refusing to address will be somebody else's problem.

At least with this, we CAN change who is in office. They aren't there for 20-30-40 years as President/King. Which is the one big problem with a monarchy. Right now, 8 years max and they are out. I wish the Congress had term limits too. 2 terms for the Senate and 6 for the House. That's 12 years at each House of Congress.

Quote

As to spinning in their graves do you think that this nonsense we have now is what the Founders wanted? They fought a war over a tax that was a tenth of one percent. What's the percentage you pay in taxes? I guarantee it's more then that. Thomas Jefferson was a radical revolutionary. He never expected the Constitution to last this long, nor did he want it to, he was a firm believer in a little rebellion every few years being good for society because unless you are willing to die for it you don't posses it.

Look at it like this, the so called American Hero is always portrayed as an agent of the state, whether its a police man or a soldier the American Hero is always a tool of the government. Yet the histories of the people who signed the Deceleration of Independence reveal litany of pirates, black marketeers, speculators, and general malcontents. John Hancock, the famous importer in the popular histories, who signed his name the largest on the Declaration and who provided casks of wine to the rebels after they looted the governors house, made his fortune through the partial, and then outright, ownership of pirate ships that preyed upon British, French, and Spanish shipping in the Caribbean. Sam Adams, who is more or less ignored now, and who was the man most responsible for our independence would be classified as a terrorist today. Henry Lee, revolutionary general and father to Robert E. Lee, was a professional gambler and black marketeer. Paul Revere, when he wasn't involved in the silver trade, ran a counterfeit business on the side. The list is endless. The control, waste, and manipulation that is visited daily upon the American people is not something that the Founders would have liked. They would have fought against it.

They were not unified in their opposition to Monarchy, either. They were opposed to an absentee Hessian King (George the Third didn't speak English and was a German noble until he married onto the throne of England) who let his decisions concerning the colonies be influenced by the East India Trading Company, the Hudson Bay Trading Company, and those politicians that the trading companies purchased in Parliament, including the architect of the Stamp Act and the Townsend Act, Lord North.

As far as voting goes, the founders clearly did not believe tat the people could be trusted since senators were appointed and the electoral college was put in place to stop the country from making a mistake in who they elected. In the Federalist Papers there is a long essay about the electoral college. It was not supposed to be a rubber stamp but was a final check to ensure that the right person was elected. Thomas Jefferson famously distrusted the people to do what was in their best interest. In his private correspondence he often lamented the fact that people had been given the right to vote because they were too quick to vote emotionally rather then intellectually.

They would be spinning in their graves because one thing they did NOT want, was to set up a monarchy. They had just gotten an example of the stupidity of monarchs and the system and at least tried to set something up that was supposed to hold the Congress and Presidency accountable to the people. A monarchy isn't accountable to the people, but to the nobility and themselves.

Yes, the tragedy of the commons may be communist (but it's really not) however it did happen in this country and continues to happen every election cycle. The point that it doesn't work was my point in arguing against elections.

The point that are scheming to get on the throne keeps the monarch honest. Also, monarchies don't have standing armies as we know them, each family is expected to contribute x number of professional soldiers to the national army if and when a need for those soldiers arises. To augment that force monarchies have traditionally used what is called the fyrd. That's basically a voluntary call up of armed citizens who rally to the national colors to protect their homes and localities in times of invasion.

Nobles do have a vested interest in the happiness and success of their people, it's how they become richer, how the nation becomes richer and how the nation becomes more powerful. For nobles, or a monarch to oppress their people serves no interest for the good of their families, or the nation as whole.

And they did try to set up a monarchy. Congress tried to install Washington as the king, he refused. It wasn't the office of king that they had issue with, it was one very specific king and one very specific parliament.

I'd put up the situation prior to the demise of Louis XVI as an counter-example to the nobility having a vested interest in the people. The court at Versailles was seen as being isolated from and indifferent to the conditions of poverty and hunger that afflicted the lower class (even if Marie never did say 'Let them eat cake'.)

The absolute monarchy of Louis XIV had given way under his ineffectual great grandson Louis XV to an informal council and parliament made up of clergy, ministers, and nobility that greatly detracted from the power of the monarchy.

However, more important then the political machinations of the French church was that France had bankrupted itself by losing wars for the fifty years prior to the revolution. Europe, at the time, had no true economies. The German principalities and the Italian city states did the most as far as trading was concerned. France had, since the time of Louis XIV, supported itself through winning wars. The French monarchy was doomed with the loss of the colonies in the Seven Years War. Without the support of her North American colonies France could no longer feed her people and the few things that they had produced were no longer needed, as they had been almost exclusively for the New World colonies. The money that France drained from it's North American possessions was used to buy things that they did not produce domestically, such as English cloth- thus weakening themselves while making England stronger.

The failure of the French Monarchy had more to do with a failure to diversify their economy and losing wars to Spain, France, Austria, Sweden, and England. Their decision to back America in our revolution, really done to get back at England for the defeat in the Seven Years War, helped to bankrupt an already failing state. The wars that France lost which led to their dire situation were not started by France. Every major power in Europe was attacking the French possessions because, after seventy years of French dominance on the continent, the rest of Europe was capitalizing on France's weak economic state which was not the monarchies fault but was the natural pains of turning an essentially agrarian, rural, feudal economy into a fledgling industrial economy as the Age of Enlightenment gave way to the Age of Sail.

Yes, the tragedy of the commons may be communist (but it's really not) however it did happen in this country and continues to happen every election cycle. The point that it doesn't work was my point in arguing against elections.

The point that are scheming to get on the throne keeps the monarch honest. Also, monarchies don't have standing armies as we know them, each family is expected to contribute x number of professional soldiers to the national army if and when a need for those soldiers arises. To augment that force monarchies have traditionally used what is called the fyrd. That's basically a voluntary call up of armed citizens who rally to the national colors to protect their homes and localities in times of invasion.

Nobles do have a vested interest in the happiness and success of their people, it's how they become richer, how the nation becomes richer and how the nation becomes more powerful. For nobles, or a monarch to oppress their people serves no interest for the good of their families, or the nation as whole.

I had to laugh at the bolded part. That is definitely NOT true. If anything, it makes them more corrupt. The nobility and royalty are almost never invested in helping the common man. Most of what they want will be geared towards increasing their own power and influence. Think of the capitalists of the 1800s. Those would be the nobility you would end up with. Especially if this monarchy you want ended up in power. They would put in people who would cater to their needs. To their businesses. Giving them tax breaks while levying taxes on the middle and lower class and start a whole new type of class warfare.

You are assuming that the nobles would be mostly altruistic in nature, when human nature has proven the exact opposite. Give them complete and total control and you will see them caring less and less for the 'common man'. The common man wouldn't have any voice in the say or functioning of government, of what laws are passed (gun control would happen real quick. The nobility hates an armed populace), what taxes are levied and what quality of goods are made, and very importantly, what religion is worshiped in the nation. Monarchies were very tied in with religion.

As for standing armies, the British had large standing armies and a huge navvy and with that, they conquered about a quarter of the world. If you think we're in wars now, what a monarchy would get us into would likely be far worse. Monarchies are far more flawed than democracies

Quote

And they did try to set up a monarchy. Congress tried to install Washington as the king, he refused. It wasn't the office of king that they had issue with, it was one very specific king and one very specific parliament.

Thankfully Washington refused and 10 years later, the US Constitution was created. A monarchy would have been a terrible thing indeed. And even if they had put one ion, it would have been a constitutional one. The type you are against.

Britain's standing army was relatively small. What allowed them to conquer a quarter of the globe were the corporate armies (The East India Trading Company, for example, had a private standing army that fought all over the world) which they were allowed to do through an act of Parliament opposed by the king. Historically, monarchies fight limited wars for tangible gains. The doctrine of Total War was unknown to monarchies, it made no sense because it was an expenditure of money and resources without any gain.

Interestingly, I do believe that our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are, or were prior to the withdrawal, hugely augmented by corporate soldiers. Oh, I'm sorry, we call them "contractors" now.

I do not think they would be altruistic, I think they would be selfish and that would work as a control. They want power and wealth well that comes from the people but in order for it to work the people have to free and happy.The more selfish they are the better, the nobles, or governors, or whatever of each state would work to increase the value of their state unlike the current system where mediocrity is prized above excellence.

Also, historically most monarchies have taken a very liberal view of private ownership of weapons. It isn't until you had dictators, or congress, or parliament screaming that something needed to be done about "violence" that weapons began to be banned. Australia is a democracy, very strict gun ownership regulations, likewise France, Britain (which is essentially a democracy since the royals do nothing) Germany, Spain, Venezuelan, the list continues. Strangely, the major nation that, after it's election this weekend, seems to be headed towards a proto-monarchy has very liberal gun ownership laws. I'm talking about Russia.

Other democracies where guns are extremely regulated and almost impossible to own include S. Korea, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden....so how does democracy protect your right to gun ownership? Democracies seem to be up there with countries such as Cuba, China, and N. Korea.

Countries that, under monarchies, had extremely lax gun ownership laws were Britain prior to the opening of the House of Lords to general elections, Germany before Hitler, Russia before Lenin, France before DeGaul, Spain before Franco....should I continue?

And we don't have class warfare already? Prohibitively high tax rates? An entitlement sub-class and an elitist class squeezing the middle class?

SilentScreams, the monarchy you are wanting doesn't exist. Human nature will overcome it and if the nobles aren't beholden to anyone but themselves (I'm sorry, but;

Quote

I do not think they would be altruistic, I think they would be selfish and that would work as a control. They want power and wealth well that comes from the people but in order for it to work the people have to free and happy.The more selfish they are the better, the nobles, or governors, or whatever of each state would work to increase the value of their state unlike the current system where mediocrity is prized above excellence.

doesn't exactly work. You have been pushing for a -unconstitutional- monarchy. The system the British have is a constitutional one, so using that as an example for your monarchy doesn't work.

For that, you need to use a absolute monarchy (France was one) as an example and I believe it was until recently, after their revolutions, that the peasantry were allowed to have more than basic weapons. Others include Czarist and Soviet Russia, N. Korea, Libya and other despotic regimes that have been handed down from father to son (hereditary line of succession eh?)

You're trying to show that a noble class and royalty, with no ties, connection or need to listen to the common people would actually listen to the unwashed masses? They already have their power, why should they really care what the common people think when they can use house hold troops to arrest any agitators and put down any popular uprising by shooting anyone that resists.

I'd think under the regime you want (absolute monarchy) you would have restricted gun control (can't have the populace able to overthrow the king now can we?), governmental control over the economy and governmental control over the media and internet. After you can't have the plebes thinking they can do a better job than their betters can you? What you want would, in my opinion, end up in a cesspool a lot quicker than a democracy and with the people having far less power since there's nothing to rein in the actions of the king/queen and nobility.

Something else occurred to me as I was feeding the animals. Corporations. You would very likely see the corporate board members of corporations either buying patents of nobility, marrying into the noble houses or offering sweet stock options for nobility to take seats on the board of directors and stockholders. Which means in a generation or less you would see corporations being able to set policies even more than they can now. How do you think labor laws would fair under that? Wages? Unions?